New Jersey Civilian Disarmament Bills Move Closer to Law

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) brings us up to speed on New Jersey’s impending gun ban bills, starting with A2006:

Anti-gun legislators’ attempt to ban ammunition magazines over 10 rounds (A2006) is a lot more than “just” a magazine ban. It’s also a gun ban that would outlaw some of the most popular .22 rifles in the United States, turn their owners into felons, and force them to abandon their property or go to jail for as long as ten years – essentially a confiscation. Among other things, A2006 would make the following change to existing law: “‘Assault Firearm’ means…A semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 15 10 rounds.” Please note this is only one of several changes that A2006 would make . . .

This change would flat-out ban many common and popular tube-fed, semi-automatic .22 rifles (we previously listed over 40 different guns that would be banned). Those in possession of these popular guns would be turned into felons overnight for possession of so-called “assault” firearms – a second degree crime in New Jersey carrying up to ten years in prison, with a minimum mandatory sentence of 3-5 years, with no chance of parole.

The Washington Times recently covered this story, mentioning ANJRPC by name.

A2006 contains no grandfathering to protect current owners, and no amnesty period or procedure for current owners who wish to comply.

Existing owners would be thrown to the wolves – forced to abandon their property or go to prison – a form of confiscation.

A2006 MAGAZINE BAN

Less hidden in A2006 than the gun ban, is its stated purpose: to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. This is based on the naïve and false assumption that removing a particular type of tool from society will somehow make everyone safer.

Those bent on doing evil will not be stopped or deterred just because a particular tool becomes less available or unavailable. If box cutters could bring down the World Trade Center, does anyone really believe that banning box cutters will stop the next terrorist attack? The same is true of firearms – banning a particular tool will not deter someone who is determined to do evil.

Also, criminals and madmen don’t follow magazine bans, or any other type of ban for that matter. Criminals laugh at laws that target hardware. Only law-abiding citizens are affected by hardware bans, because they’re the only ones that follow them. The net effect is that the law-abiding are put at a disadvantage against the lawless. The only thing that criminals understand is severe punishment.

Even if a magic wand could be waved in the land of anti-gun fantasy and remove all 10+ round magazines from the planet, no one would be made any safer, because magazines can be changed very quickly. The theory that a magazine change provides an opportunity to “tackle” an assailant is unsound and unsupported by the weight of the evidence.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that police owe no duty to protect individual citizens from harm, which means that citizens are on their own in an emergency and cannot rely on 911. Yet rather than enhance the ability of citizens to defend themselves when an emergency or home invasion strikes, A2006 would instead tie their hands and put them at a disadvantage against criminals who will ignore the magazine ban.

Magazine bans are also completely arbitrary and their logic, if followed, have the potential to lead to a complete ban on all rounds. The idea that an eleventh round is somehow more lethal than the tenth is absurd, and the exact same logic could be applied to a second round in relation to the first, or even the first round itself.

The Constitutional right of self-defense is sacrosanct, and a magazine ban directly and significantly interferes with that right.

A2777 – TRANSPORTATION “FIX” NEEDS TO BE FIXED

A2777 was recently touted as part of a deal among democrats to pacify gun owners in light of the impending gun ban / mag ban legislation described above. The legislation was supposed to fix the longstanding problem of what constitutes “reasonable deviations” from the direct transportation of firearms required by New Jersey law. Legal gun owners face prison sentences of up to ten years if they stop while properly transporting unloaded, locked firearms, unless they meet certain technical requirements and the stop is deemed a “reasonable deviation” in transportation.

Unfortunately, A2777 as written does not actually fix the problem, and makes the situation worse than under current law. The “fix” needs to be fixed.

Under current law, judges have discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a particular set of circumstances constitutes a reasonable deviation. While that is a double-edged sword, and current law provides no guidance as to what a reasonable deviation is, at least gun owners caught within New Jersey’s tangled web of hyper-technical regulations have a chance at demonstrating to a judge that their particular transportation deviation was reasonable, and judges have the flexibility to prevent outrageous, absurd prison sentences where someone stops briefly and innocently while in lawful transit with firearms.

While the current proposal does contain a short list of circumstances that would be deemed reasonable, the wording of that proposal would limit reasonable deviations to just the items on that list, and prevent judges from finding that any other circumstance was a reasonable deviation. Judges would lose the discretion that they currently have to determine whether any other deviation is reasonable, and gun owners would still be facing jeopardy of potential 10-year prison sentences for common, innocent stops while en route to the range, because of deep flaws and omissions in the articulated list.

The list of acceptable deviations in A2777 is tiny, stingy, and poorly crafted, without meaningful insight into real-world occurrences that affect most gun owners. While that list contains some beneficial circumstances, it also omits numerous foreseeable circumstances and creates more questions and ambiguities than it resolves. It limits reasonable deviations to only what is in that list, and removes judicial discretion to resolve other circumstances, which means law-abiding gun owners will go to prison if their stop does not fit into the poorly-crafted list.

The list could represent a small, incremental improvement over current law judicial discretion to resolve additional unforeseen circumstances were retained. Until it does, it cannot be regarded as an improvement and it should be opposed if it is not amended – and the following simple, single word change would restore judicial discretion in unforeseen circumstances:

For the purposes of this section, “deviations as are reasonably necessary” meansincludes collecting and discharging passengers whose transportation is permitted under paragraph (2) of subsection b., subsection e., or paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection f. of this section, purchasing fuel, using a restroom, and contending with an emergency situation. A person transporting a weapon pursuant to this subsection shall comply with all other applicable State laws relating to weapons.

ANJRPC has now provided this input to legislative leaders but has not received any assurance that the legislation will be amended before it is heard in the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee Thursday.

A2777 was introduced this session without seeking any input from Second Amendment leaders. That is a slap in the face to gun owners, who worked for months on a comprehensive, effective deviations bill last year and were promised that it would be passed last June. That proposal was agreed and accepted by legislative leadership until it was scuttled by an anti-gun-rights legislator, and the promise from legislative leaders was broken.

A2777 bears little resemblance to last year’s proposal, though it does retain some elements of it. Based on the dynamics of the current legislative session, it does not appear likely that last year’s comprehensive proposal will be considered, which is why have confined our input on this legislation to the single, simple word change highlighted above, to which there can be no reasonable objection, and which should be attainable — who can possibly object to retaining judicial discretion to address circumstances not contemplated by legislators?

Accordingly, ANJRPC opposes A2777 in its current form, because it makes the current reasonable deviations law even worse by removing judicial discretion to address circumstances not contemplated in the short, stingy list it presents.

However, if amended as highlighted above, ANJRPC would view A2777 as a small, incremental improvement over current law, and would remove its opposition.

93 Responses to New Jersey Civilian Disarmament Bills Move Closer to Law

Some counties are shotgun-only for deer due to population IIRC. What I have never understood is Pennsylvania where you can’t hunt with autoloaders. Own them, yes, hunt with them, no. Handguns in the field restricted to revolvers.

It’s the first time I’ve heard them referred to as ‘old’ and ‘new,’ but the resources I used to learn HTML just presented both of them and didn’t mention any precedence. But thanks for the new (to me) historical factoid. 🙂

It is possible to embed a photo, but it’s not encouraged. We’ve got enough people that think that an appropriate response is to just link a YouTube video without any other comment (and it’s the same videos over and over) that encouraging graphic/photo posting would likely turn that into some folks’ primary form of commentary. There’s enough outlets on the internet for a meme-fest, this doesn’t need to be another one.

Let’s hope NJ completely bans all firearms. Then all the criminals will flock to the state. NJ will be a warzone, but the rest of the country’s violent crime will plummet. I’m kidding, but that’s probably not untrue, actually. Make a single place in the country as gun free as possible, while eliminating any and all restrictions on gun ownership in the rest of the country. Criminals flock to the gun free area, only to meet other armed criminals and end up all slaughtering each other.

Heh. It’s a microcosm. Just as the states are realizing they have the power to nullify unconstitutional federal laws, maybe the counties of Joisey are discovering that they have the power to nullify unconstitutional state laws.

Maybe it’s easier to see how obvious it is that that sort of system works best when you realize that just as you’re a resident of a county, you’re also a resident of the state and of the country, but those different levels of government have different functions. Or should.

The areas in the US with the most bizarre and restrictive gun laws are exactly those states with the longest-running social conflict between the upper political and economic strata and large poorly assimilated immigrant communities. The resentment and poverty felt by the immigrants led to crime and the slum-based growth of organized crime. Over this the rich looked with horror and fear (from mid-town and upper Manhattan looking down toward the lower east side, for example).

While the establishment v. ethnic immigrant tensions are not a perfect explanation, they come very close in the case of LA, Chicago, Boston, New York City, and Baltimore. New Jersey still fears its riff raff. So does MA. So does CA. Who defines riff raff? The guys with the power to pass anti-gun laws, of course.

Don’t forget to include in the ‘immigrant’ calculations the Great Migration of rural southern blacks to the north seeking work.

“Reasonable deviations” does not include pulling over while having a heart attack and calling 911 to be driven to the hospital. A minimum mandatory 3-5 years… Don’t feed me this “For the children” malarkey…

The law is ludicrous enough without expounding on it inaccurately. I suspect that seeking treatment for a heart attack would fall under ‘contending with an emergency’ and thus is a reasonable deviation.

NY and NJ have been in a contest to implement the worst gun control for decades. NY would pull away entirely if not for the fact that a normal person can buy a gun fairly easily as long as you’re north of the five boroughs.

WOW TAKE A DEEP Breath…. the first part is full hysteria… NO jack booted thugs are going to arrest you because your old 22 rifle has more than 10 round capacity. However what is wrong with 10 rounds? My found memories of a 22 rifle as a youth, was single shot….. I am not sure what the point of the article is, but it is so full of emotional rants it’s hard to read. I am NOT for this legislation, but this kind of “over my cold dead body” talk freaks people out….. really. Deep breaths. Write your state Reps…. by all means.

I don’t need another restriction that attempts to make me a criminal until proven innocent. The state reps don’t care. It’s up for a vote tomorrow and they won’t care who says what against it. They didn’t last year and they only reason so many of them didn’t pass is because if Christie. Notice how there’s so much flak against him in the last couple months? None of the politicians in this state will do what’s right for the people. Look up NJ gun laws and try and argue that we need even as little as one more…

“NO jack booted thugs are going to arrest you because your old 22 rifle has more than 10 round capacity” No, maybe not, but who can speak for the future. And as far as your comment goes, maybe they won’t come for your .22 but when I go to a range here in NJ with a blocked off 30 or 20 round mag, the RO without fail will at some point come and ask “Is that a 30 round magazine?” They’ve even checked mag capacity on me before so that illegal .22 that maybe won’t be confiscated, certainly can’t be taken to the range any longer.

I usually try not to feed the troll, but I have to say that the 2nd Amendment isn’t about having fun with a single shot 22. It is about fighting tyrants with whatever it takes to fight said tyrant. Also, we may be emotional, but our emotion is based on reason (or more specifically the fact that the antis lack reason.) The antis are the one’s that are truly emotional without reason, not us.

Actually, what the law proposes is that jack booted thugs arrest people because their old .22 holds more than 10 rounds. It’s exactly this that makes the law so absurd and so abusive. I’m not sure if you’re an anti plant or experiencing difficulty with reading comprehension but the very reason the response to this is so volatile is that it’s exactly what you deny, making a felony crime of owning a simple .22 tube feed rifle.

I hate that stereotype that all of NJ is just one big suburb…I lived in Hunterdon County with approx. 400 acres behind me and 100 in front that I could hunt on. Just down the road we had another 75 acres. There are plenty of similar areas throughout NJ. While overall the people per square mile may be higher/highest in the nation it doesn’t necessarily mean that there are not places to shoot/hunt in open space.

I guess once you hit the NJ border the Appalachian Trail becomes an elevated walkway. You know to bypass the suburbs and all. Not to mention all our hunters must put up their blinds in alleys and tree stands are called fire escapes. Yes Sheldon that was sarcasm.

I wish someone had had the stones to have said, “OK, we passed it, we found out what’s in it, and we HATE it! Now, how the fratz do we get rid of it?”
I guess Ted Cruz tried, but he got pilloried by the Ministry of Truth.

It would be better to have the more explicit wording “… includes but is not restricted to …” to stop the powers that be construing “… includes …” as “… only includes …”. Ironically, the very fact that a more explicit wording is often used for that sort of thing would make it easier to argue for a narrower construction if it wasn’t ruled out that way here.

If the legislation only has the word “includes”, that means ONLY what is in that list. As P.M. Lawrence stated above, that legislation must include additional words that make it crystal clear that the list is indicative and not all inclusive.

No it would be better to just get rid of NJs unconstitutional laws. I am not referring to any one in specific but all of them. I am not referring to the usual shall not be infringed (but that too), but to the way the laws are written. According to NJ law ALL guns are banned period. They then in their infinite largess and kindness carve out several exceptions to said ban. In NJ, when dealing with firearms (yes that includes bb guns and slingshots) you are guilty until you prove you are under one of the few exceptions. “When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.” State v. Pelleteri 294 N.J. Super. 330 (1996). I would refer you to Evan Nappens Pantano brief for further explanation as to how the laws as currently written are not valid as the precedents the courts use to defend these laws have been overturned by Heller and Mcdonald. http://www.evannappen.com/uploads/1/0/8/0/1080251/webpostbrief.pdf

Am I the only one who thinks the boxcutter example probably isn’t the wisest. . . They have banned boxcutters on planes, and there has not been any more incidents involving boxcutters in planes, right?

No, just explosives. I don’t think the boxcutter ban has stopped anything, if they tried to use them a second time (which they won’t) the Todd Beamers of the world would rush them using their brifcases, carry-on luggage and rolled-up sportscoats as shields

Yes but they have a means of enforcing the boxcutter ban – the x-ray machines at airport security.
Banning weapons is only effective at reducing the use of said weapons in crime if there is a viable means of enforcing the ban. Like security checkpoints.
Signs around a gun free zone, or merely a law on the books against using/posessing said weapons, are not a viable means of enforcing a ban as they will not remove any contraband items from criminals until they are used in a crime or law enforcement has some other reason to make contact with a person, become aware of their item, and take it.
As has been said ad nauseum around here, all GFZs and bans do is take weapons from those not inclined to commit crimes, leaving them defenseless against those who are.
Kansas recently passed a law that says in effect that government buildings cannot ban weapons unless they have security checkpoints or some other means of enforcing a ban. Signs and policies will not suffice.

Checkpoints are just theater. Many objects are taken past these checkpoint daily. Just look at prisons. Prisoners go through checkpoints when moving about from areas as well as strip searches when going to/ from visits, medical and court. They also have random searches of their persons and cells/common areas. Yet they manage to kill each other quite efficiently. Once someone gets it into their head to kill, all the checkpoints, bans and laws wont stop them. Your best bet is awareness and being prepared. A couple of well placed shots work better than any checkpoint. YMMV

I can’t remember the last time I’ve flown without guns, ammo, and knives – in my checked luggage. I’m sure my checked baggage would get lost or destroyed in a crash. Heck, that happens even when the plane doesn’t crash. I really despise all the BS that comes with commercial flights.

OK, I’m confused. “Fixed magazine capacity”? Don’t all those eeeeeevil AR/AK clones feature DETACHABLE magazines? And if the law makes no centerfire-rimfire distinction, pray tell why they WON’T arrest you for a 15 round .22? I’m so damn glad I don’t live in a place like NJ.

As I’ve said before, this whole thing is not so much about the legislation itself as painting Christie in a corner, no matter what he does. If he signs it, he’s a gun-grabber; if he vetoes it, he’s a gun nut. So no matter what he does, he’s going to lose voters when he tries to run for president in 2016.

Which is kinda stupid as he’s the worst possible candidate, unless he runs as a democrat.

“The Constitutional right of self-defense is sacrosanct, and a magazine ban directly and significantly interferes with that right.”

We would be beer served if pro-gun groups such as this actually read the Constitution and made accurate statements regarding the subject they are supposedly protecting. I have been over that document and I cannot find in it anywhere a “Constitutional right of self defense.” And to be really nit-picky, the First Amendment rather explicitly prohibits the government from making anything officially “sacrosanct.”

The Second Amendment enumerates the “…right of the people to keep and bear arms…” and states further, “…shall not be infringed.” It makes no comment whatsoever on what use the people may or may not make of those arms other than to say it is not the government’s business. And we really don’t need to go into the whole argument about the prefatory clause regarding a well regulated militia, that horse has been rather thoroughly flogged.

I’d like to see an emphasis of the meaning of the phrase “free State.” It doesn’t mean a geopolitical entity with carte blanche to do anything to its neighboring states or even its own people that it wants to do, it means a condition or state of being of Liberty, (cf “state of confusion”) just like the State of the Union called out in Article II, Section 3: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union,” e.g, “The State of the Union today is one of Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity.”

So the RKBA is to ensure that we will always be able to keep alive that state of being known as Individual Liberty. The Militia are the armed people who organize when they need to to throw out the tyrant.

And, I must admit, albeit reluctantly, that most dopers are very peaceable and non-threatening, so chasing after them diverts resources from their primary focus – the disarmament and enslavement of the people. Dope addicts make very obedient slaves, when they’re provided with free dope.

Thankfully, very few potheads are dope addicts, and some of us are actually conscious! ;-D

Another Conneticut in the making , at least so far most of the states going communist are in the northeast , so when the fools in government up there start the next civil war we don’t have to be spread out fighting on different fronts . Be prepared and ready. Keep your powder dry.

Maybe I shouldn’t be pointing this out, but if I were a criminal defense lawyer, I’d argue that a ” fixed magazine capacity of 10″ refers to a fixed magazine; as on a SKS. All the statute prohibits is changing out the standard 10-rounder for a non-detachable 30-rounder. It’s wording keeps it from applying to a detachable magazine of any capacity.

It’s funny, except it’s not, that these gungrabbers laugh at and scoff and mock anyone who suggests that armed civilians are a deterrent to mass murder, or that such citizens could stop such a shooting spree if it starts. They deride the very notion of everyday heroes as absurd, impractical and unreliable. Nevermind that this exact scenario has played out to their discredit multiple times.

And yet, these exact same gungrabbers offer magazine limits on the premise that everyday heroes, who just happen to be within a feet of the shooter, will leap in unison to action and tackle the killer.

So let me get it straight, armed defenders are weak and unreliable. Unarmed defenders are strong and dependable. So we need to weaken the defenders to make them stronger. Newspeak, anyone?

And how do the gungrabbers square this circular reasoning against their often leveled slander that lawfully armed citizens are just ticking timebombs waiting to go off? The guns supposedly give people unaccustomed to courage the wherewithal to act out. Then what are the unarmed defenders suppposed draw upon as they swoop in to put a beatdown on an active shooter?

I’m finding legislation like this more and more curious. In most of the country the anti-2A’s are getting setback after setback. Even here in Illinois and now California. But look at where they are getting these laws through.

Colorado – successful recalls and governor in jeopardy.
New York – Ok… perhaps here, they are getting away with it, but I think there is more resistance than most realize.
Connecticut – Open defiance and civil disobedience. Basically, a powder keg that they don’t know how to get out.
New Jersey – God only knows how that will play out.

My point is, they are basically in retreat everywhere else but doubling down in their strongholds. One thing is clear; in the big picture, their tactics are defensive rather than offensive. There is a sense of circling the wagons about this.

Actually, fall back and dig a trench may be a better comparison. And they’re entrenching in friendly territory. That is a problem because such a deeply entrenched opponent can hold that defensive position for a very long time. As long as they can hold that position they will always be a threat. They have made it clear the only compromise they will accept is practical surrender.

I moved out of NJ several years ago when it became apparent that despite the valiant efforts of various groups, the majority of its population is anti gun and greatly influenced by nearby NYC. I lived in NJ for about 30 years and instead of getting better, it has gotten worse and unfortunately I do not seeing that changing.

I voted with my feet and moved to Florida. I am no longer supporting a State government that I disagree with. To me, staying would be absurd as I would be paying the people who want my guns.